I don't know if I'd call Genghis Khan much of a conquerer. Sure, he did defeat pretty much all of Asia and much of Europe, but the thing that made him so good was that he basically took over and immediately left. He didn't conquer anything, in the sense that he never maintained any sort of rule over the people he defeated. He just beat them and then left on his push to the west.

Dud Doodoo wrote:Whiiiiiiiich tore the empire in two by setting up a separate capital in Eastern Rome, further weakening it by taking away it's greatest strength.

Constantine was more concerned with sealing his name down in history than the fate of Rome. I blame him for it's downfall.

The downfall of the west was the rise of the east my friend. I blame all the crappy emperors and the greedy bitches(The Senecas) who came into power after constantine split the empire. I dont think Constantine expected the west to end like it did anyways.That and romans would rather have slaves, be lazy, and rely on barbarians to fight their fights...

On a different note: I would say Tet(Not sure of his name) was a conqueror more than Genghis Khan. He pretty much established an Islamic Mongolian rule in Northern India, and nearly fucked over the Turks. He united the Mongolian nations after Ghengis Khan died some 60-120 years later. He also managed to die when marching on China....Granted, it's been awhile since I studied this guy, so please excuse the fact I cant remember his name.